Central Information Commission
Archana Goindi vs State Bank Of India on 23 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/645890
Archana Goindi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India
Faridabad, Haryana ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.04.2023 FA : 23.05.2023 SA : 20.09.2023
CPIO : 11.05.2023 FAO : 20.06.2023 Hearing : 17.12.2024
Date of Decision: 23.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) What is the status of my Home loan subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) in respect of my above mentioned hom considering my eligibility as a beneficiary under PMAY scheme
(ii) If the answer to the question at (1.) is in negative, information be provided as to why home loan subsidy amount, related interest rate any other benefit under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) were not credited to my home loan account, despite my proven eligible income less than 12 or 18 lacs, single adult Page 1 of 4 earning woman, the purchase of first ever house/property of 120 sq. yards and first ever home
(iii) Information in terms of reasons/clarification may be provided for negligence on part of on the State Bank of India in respect of my PMAY subsidy which continuously burdened me with undue financial cost and over calculated EMI.
(iv) Information/Reasons may be provided on why was I charged undue EMI despite my constitutional right and eligibility under the PM scheme for public welfare.
(v) Reasons for breach of duties by SBI towards me being a home loan customer and SBI being a Central Nodal Agency under PMAY scheme for channelizing this subsidy to the beneficiaries through lending institutions and also for monitoring the progress.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) Your Query- What is the status of my Home loan subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) in respect of my home loan account considering my eligibility as a beneficiary under PMAY scheme Our Response - The home loan account is not eligible under subsidy under PMAY.
(ii) Your Query- If the answer to the question at (1) is negative, information to be provided as to why home loan subsidy amount, related interest rate relaxations and any other benefit under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) were not credited to my home loan account, despite my proven eligibility (in terms of income less than 12 or 18 lacs, single adult earning woman, the purchase of first ever house/property of 120 Sq. Yds and first ever home loan availed).Page 2 of 4
Our Response As per the instructions, for the category of MIG-I the Maximum Gross House hold income per Annum should be in range of ₹. 6.00 lacs to ₹.12.00 lacs for an area of upto 160 Sq. Mtr. Whereas the Gross monthly income considered for appraisal of the home loan was .1,05,472.00 per month i.e. ₹. 12,65,664.00 p.a. as on date of sanction.
(iii) Your Query- Information in terms of reasons/clarification may be provided for negligence on part on the State Bank of India in respect of my entitlement for PMAY subsidy which continuously burdened me with undue financial cost and over calculated EMI.
Our Response NA
(iv) Your Query- Information/Reasons may be provided on why was I charged undue EMI despite my constitutional right and eligibility under the PMAY government scheme for public welfare - Our Response - NA
(v) Your Query- Reasons for breach of duties by SBI towards me being a home loan customer and SBI being a Central Nodal Agency under PMAY scheme responsible for channelizing this subsidy to the beneficiaries through lending institutions and also for monitoring the progress. Our Response - NA
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.06.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.09.2023
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajesh Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing in-person.
Page 3 of 46. The respondent while defending their case inter alia while endorsing the CPIO's reply dated 11.05.2023 submitted that the appellant's Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) application did not meet the income criteria of the scheme, hence, the appellant was not found eligible for the loan.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead her case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 23.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, SCO-98, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana - 121002
2. Archana Goindi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)